Busting a loudmouth: Does it get any better than this?

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
You're right, 22 is 50.334 to 49.666 against a random hand. Here's why its still -EV.

With that slight of edge, you'll never be able to make up for the fact that you'll end up paying maniac off more the 49.666% of the time you lose, than he pays you off the 50.334% of the time you win. It's plain and simple.

You were bet/raising on that hand every chance you got no matter what came on the board. While on the other hand the "maniac" only called you down when he was beat on the turn and river. Had he had a hand that was beating you, he would've still been firing raises in on the turn and river.

Doing what you did, is basically like flipping a coin and paying more when you lose than what you get if you win.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a slight favorite if we go to showdown. I admit I haven't done the math but against a random hand I'm ahead on the flop well over 50% of the time (60%ish) and slightly more than 50% of the time on the turn (55%ish). He will fold if behind somewhat randomly depending on his read on me.

While you are right that I win smaller pots than him on average I win considerably more than 50% of the pots due to the fact that he isn't seeing the river (or turn) every time. I wasn't dead set on capping every street before the flop came just on seeing a showdown. If the board was somewhat scary (monotone, lots of paint, very coordinated etc.) I can go into calldown mode and save some bets when I'm buried. When the flop is paired like this one was I knew my equity was even higher and it was time to push.

Where do you draw the line for isolating a player like this? How do you modify your play? Are you limping with 22 or folding? Are you calling him down from the flop on? I think folding 22 HU to this guy is a mistake.

In this situation I would certainly make this play again. Not just for value but because the metagaming considerations were just too rich. Having him lose to pocket twos was just plain funny in that spot. While it can be argued that it might have been -EV and I easliy could have lost it was worth showing down 22 if for no other reason than to keep him interested in giving me action. He was going to lose his money to somebody and I really wanted it to be me. I was OOP position against him and I really wanted him to help me with my isolation attempts every time. Sure I was a bit lucky but it wasn't that bad a play IMO.

Besides it made for a pretty good story didn't it? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MEbenhoe]

blah blah blah, I went on tilt, and now I'm trying to defend it as great play with illogical arguments. Thats basically all any of this has turned into.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah blah, I went on tilt, and now I'm trying to defend it as great play with illogical arguments. Thats basically all any of this has turned into.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is the flaw in my logic? If you don't wish to discuss this anymore fine with me but I will probably repeat this play in the future and feel good about it. Personally I'd like to be convinced by you that this play was incorrect but it hasn't happened yet. I had sepcific questions for you in my last post. They were intended to illicit dialogue. Whatever dude.